THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.JOHN CRANE SEALING SYSTE
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned counsel for the Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. It was submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of this submission and the circular, dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai) filed three Tax Case Appeals (T.C.A. Nos. 534, 533, and 539 of 2021) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. These appeals challenged the orders dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'C' Bench. The appeals pertain to assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, concerning M/s. John Crane Sealing Systems India Pvt. Ltd. The core dispute revolved around whether payments made towards royalty were to be treated as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payments towards royalty are to be allowed as a revenue expenditure and not capital? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when the entire payment of royalty was capital in nature as it was for an acquisition of a technical knowhow license and was therefore capital in nature and only depreciation is to be allowed in view of Explanation 4 to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act? The Revenue contended that the royalty payments were capital in nature, being for the acquisition of a technical know-how license, and therefore, only depreciation should be allowed as per Explanation 4 to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A. Nos. 534, 533 and 539 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.12.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A. Nos. 534, 533 and 539 of 2021 and C.M.P. Nos. 19253 and 19276 of 2021 T.C.A. No. 534 of 2021:- The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.
... Appellant Vs. M/s. John Crane Sealing Systems India Pvt. Ltd. 1, Ground Floor, 'Casa Blanca' No.6, Casa Major Road, Egmore Chennai – 600 008 PAN : AAA CJ 2131J ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, in I.T.A. No. 1914/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr. T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel T.C.A. No. 533 of 2021:- The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.
... Appellant 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. Nos. 534, 533 and 539 of 2021 Vs. M/s. John Crane Sealing Systems India Pvt. Ltd. 1, Ground Floor, 'Casa Blanca' No.6, Casa Major Road, Egmore Chennai – 600 008 PAN : AAA CJ 2131J ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, in I.T.A. No. 1913/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr. T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel T.C.A. No. 539 of 2021:- The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.
... Appellant Vs. M/s. John Crane Sealing Systems India Pvt. Ltd. 1, Ground Floor, 'Casa Blanca' No.6, Casa Major Road, Egmore Chennai – 600 008 PAN : AAA CJ 2131J ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, in I.T.A. No. 1912/Mds/2015 for the assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant : Mr. T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. Nos. 534, 533 and 539 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A. Nos. 1912 to 1914/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payments towards royalty is to be allowed as a revenue expenditure and not capital? (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when the entire payment of royalty was capital in nature as it was for an acquisition of a technical knowhow license and was therefore capital in nature and only depreciation is to be allowed in view of Explanation 4 to Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act?” 2. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. Nos. 534, 533 and 539 of 2021 wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases, where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in these appeals are less than the threshold limit. 3. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate cases. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 17.12.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No Maya To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. Nos. 534, 533 and 539 of 2021 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Maya T.C.A. Nos. 534, 533 and 539 of 2021 Dated : 17.12.2021 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
More judgments on Section 32(1)(ii)
- Msrdc Sea Link Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -4…ITA 3693/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT 1(3)(2), MumbaiITA 977/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs Tata Communications Ltd, MumbaiITA 830/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- Baleshwar Kharagpur Expressway Limited… vs PCIT-6, MumbaiITA 5714/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Bank of India, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, MumbaiITA 2810/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026